A Wave Energy Converter Design Load Case Study

Rij, Jennifer van; Yu, Yi Hsiang; Guo, Yi; Coe, Ryan G.

doi:10.3390/jmse7080250

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [14], a WEC-Sim model was compared with a STAR-CCM+ CFD model for a focused wave obtained using NewWave theory, and the overall responses predicted by the two models compared well, and were on average within 5% from each other. This is in contrast to the results of [18], where the dynamics predicted by a high-fidelity CFD method gave a better agreement with experimental data than linear-based models.…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Loads on a Point Absorber Wave Energy Converter in Regular and Focused Extreme Wave Events

Katsidoniotaki¹,

Ransley²,

Brown³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate modeling and prediction of extreme loads for survivability is of crucial importance if wave energy is to become commercially viable. The fundamental differences in scale and dynamics from traditional offshore structures, as well as the fact that wave energy has not converged around one or a few technologies, implies that it is still an open question how the extreme loads should be modeled. In recent years, several methods to model wave energy converters in extreme waves have been developed, but it is not yet clear how the different methods compare. The purpose of this work is the comparison of two widely used approaches when studying the response of a point-absorber wave energy converter in extreme waves, using the open-source CFD software OpenFOAM. The equivalent design-waves are generated both as equivalent regular waves and as focused waves defined using NewWave theory. Our results show that the different extreme wave modeling methods produce different dynamics and extreme forces acting on the system. It is concluded that for the investigation of point-absorber response in extreme wave conditions, the wave train dynamics and the motion history of the buoy are of high importance for the resulting buoy response and mooring forces.

show abstract

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Loads on a Point Absorber Wave Energy Converter in Regular and Focused Extreme Wave Events

Katsidoniotaki¹,

Ransley²,

Brown³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Van Rij et al [46] justify the use of the k − ω SST turbulence model in their study on the design loads of a WEC device by identifying it as a "good compromise of computational stability, cost, and accuracy between the simpler RANS turbulence models and the more complex LES".…”

Section: Related Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of Turbulence Modeling for Point-Absorber-Type Wave Energy Converters

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reviewing the literature of CFD-based numerical wave tanks for wave energy applications, it can be observed that different flow conditions and different turbulence models are applied during numerical wave energy converter (WEC) experiments. No single turbulence model can be identified as an `industry standard’ for WEC modeling. The complexity of the flow field around a WEC, together with the strong dependency of turbulence effects on the shape, operational conditions, and external forces, hampers the formulation of such an `industry standard’. Furthermore, the conceptually different flow characteristics (i.e., oscillating, free surface flows), compared to the design cases of most turbulence models (i.e., continuous single-phase flow), can be identified as a source for the potential lack of accuracy of turbulence models for WEC applications. This communication performs a first step towards analyzing the accuracy and necessity of modeling turbulence effects, by means of turbulence models, within CFD-based NWTs for WEC applications. To that end, the influence of turbulence models and, in addition, the influence of the initial turbulence intensity is investigated based on different wave–structure interaction cases considering two separately validated WEC models. The results highlight the complexity of such a `turbulence analysis’ and the study suggests specific future work to get a better understanding of the model requirements for the flow field around WECs.

show abstract

“…For this calculation, it is assumed that 2 elite individuals are being reinserted and 23 new individuals evaluated in every iteration. The values for the time-domain model are approximated based on [125,126,127], where the time-domain modelling open-source software WEC-Sim [128] was used to model single sea states. The time for analysing 100 sea states was assumed to scale linearly.…”

Section: How Fast Can I Get My Result?mentioning

confidence: 99%